RAWLS' CONCEPT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

RAWLS' CONCEPT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE There are four questions that must be answered even in brief characterization of the original position imagined by Rawls. They are (i) "who chooses"? (ii) "what is chosen". (iii) with what knowledge"? and (iv) "with what motivation"?[8] Rawls assumes, however, that those in the "original position" will be capable of maintaining a "sense of justice". They will, apparently, without question, see justice as fairness. The Original Position is basically Rawls' strategy for discovering and defending his theory of justice and the primary function of the original position in Rawls' theory of justice is to define the fair situation for choosing the principles which govern the basic structure of society. Rawls asks us to imagine that people in the original position do not know what social position or status they hold in society. They do not know whether they are rich or poor and they do not know their personal talents and characteristics --whether, for example, they are athletic or sedentary, intelligent or not very bright. They do not know their race or even their sex. Behind what Rawls calls "The veil of ignorance" people in the Original Position know nothing about themselves personally. They do, however, have a general knowledge of History, Sociology and Psychology. As Rawls writes: "It is assumed, then, that the parties do not know certain kinds of particular facts. First of all, no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like. Nor, again, does anyone his conception of the good, the particulars of his rational plan of life, or even the special feature of his psychology such as his aversion to risk-or liability to optimism or pessimism. More than this, I assume that the parties do not know the particular circumstances of their own society."[9] The concept of "Original Position" on which Rawls raises his welfare state edifice, constitutes the heart of his theory. It is interesting that some of its elements bear a striking resemblance to Kant's Philosophy and Rawls acknowledges his debt to Kant for key ideas. Rawls tells us that the; "The Original .Position may be view, the, as a procedural interpretation of Kant's conception of autonomy and the categorical imperative. The principles regulative of the Kingdom of ends are those that would be chosen in this position and the description of this situation enables us to explain the sense in which acting from these principles express our nature as free and equal rational persons. " [10] The veil of ignorance, in effect, forces people in the original position to be objective and impartial and makes agreement possible. The circumstances of the original position are genuinely equal and fair, and because of this the principles agreed to under these conditions have good claim to be considered the principles of justice. Two Rawlsian Principles Rawls' concept of justice as fairness is articulated in two fundamental principles. First Principle: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.[11] Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attend to positions and offices open to all [12]. Rawls calls the first principle, the Principle of Greatest Equal Liberty. The second principle is also called the maximin principle. It includes two parts. The first part is the Difference Principle. It states that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit for those who are least advantaged. The second part is the Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity. It states that social and economic inequalities are to be attached to offices and positions that are open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. (1) The Principle of Greatest Equal Liberty Rawls' first principle of justice is the principle of Greatest Equal Liberty. It covers the following basic liberties. (a) Freedom to participate in political process, (b) Freedom of speech. (c) Freedom of the person (as defined by the concept of the rule of law) (d) Freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure. (e) The right to hold personal property. Rawls is of the view that the freedom of the individual is absolute and cannot be bargained under any condition. The first principle of justice differs from the classic liberal principle in that it protects not liberty in general but certain specific liberties. [2-A] The Difference Principle This principle states that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so as to be of the greatest benefit to the least advantaged.[13] The least advantaged are those who are least advantaged in their prospects of obtaining the primary goods of wealth, income, power, authority, etc. The Difference Principle requires that the basic structure be arranged in such a way that any inequalities in prospects of obtaining the primary goods of wealth, income, power, and authority must work to the greatest benefit of those persons who are the least advantaged with respect to these primary goods. [2-B] The Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity The Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity requires that we go beyond formal equality of opportunity to insure that persons with similar skills, abilities, and motivation enjoy equal opportunities. The combination of fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle constitute what Rawls calls democratic equality.[14] This principle will be made clear with an example. Suppose two individuals X and Y, both want to get higher education. X belongs to rich family and his family can bear his educational expenses and whereas Y belongs to the poor family and his family is not in a position to bear his educational express. According to Rawls' Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity, it is the duty of the institution to provide financial aid to Y because Y was born into low income class. Equal Opportunity assures progress and innovation and treats everyone with equal justice. But here the question arises that in case these principles of justice as outlined above conflict with each other which to be followed preferably. Rawls introduces here two priority rules for ordering these principles. The need for priority rules arises because efforts to satisfy one principle of justice may conflict with efforts to satisfy another. The first priority rule states that the First Principle of Justice, The Principle of Greatest Equal Liberty, is lexically prior to the second principle as a whole. So, Rawls first priority rule states that the first priority of social justice is greatest equal liberty.[15] The second priority rule states a priority relation between the two parts of the second principle of justice. According to this rule the Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity is lexically prior to the Difference Principle. The priority of liberty experienced by the first lexical priority rule is one of the most striking features of Rawls' theory. The first lexical priority rule declares that the basic liberty may not be restricted for the sake of greater material benefit for all or even for the least advantaged. Criticism Rawls' theory of justice has been subjected to many sound objections. The libertarians have made strong criticism against Rawls' theory. They claim that Rawls introduces a list of basic liberties. This list includes political liberties such as political participation, freedom of conscience and speech and the right to hold personal property but does not include protection for every action short of harm to others. This list appears too marrow to the libertarians. The difference between Rawls and the Marxist are so deep and sustained that it is no wonder the commentary on them is infrequent. The Marxist are of the view that Rawls' two principles of justice are highly abstract. The inadequacy of Rawls' theory is that Rawls fails to focus on the structure of production in the economy rather than an alternative patterns of distribution. Rawls is unable to see that distribution depends upon the production.[16] The Marxists claim that Rawls fails to see that the problem of justice cannot be solved but only dissolved through the transition to a new mode of production which eliminates both the subjective and objective components of the circumstances of justice. The Marxists further claim that Rawls provides no account of how the sense of justice serves as an effective motivation for social change. Robert Paul Wolf in his book: Understanding Rawls: A Reconstruction and Critique of A Theory of Justice, writes; (i) Rawls pays more attention to distribution rather than production. (ii) It seems to me as an ideology. Rawls' theory of justice is utopian. [17] (iii) The logical status of Rawls' theory is unclear.[18] Robert Nozick, an American academic, political philosopher, student and Harvard Colleague of Rawls spends about fifty pages of text in an effort to refute Rawls' argument. His major work Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) is widely seen as one of the most important contemporary works of Political Philosophy. Nozick points out that Rawls' conception of justice is primarily non-historical. [19] Rawls conceives of society as a cooperative venture among its members and he elaborates a conception of justice that is thoroughly social. He does not base his theory, as Nozick does, on the postulate that individuals possess certain natural rights prior to any political or social organization. In this book Anarchy, State and Utopia Nozick says that Rawls advocates a "Patterned" theory of justice. According to Patterned theory goods should be distributed among the members of a society according to a certain pattern or formula. Rawls' theory requires that goods be distributed according to his two principles. As Nozick writes: "And let us say a distribution is patterned if it accords with some patterned principle. Almost ever suggested principle of distributive justice, to each according to his moral merit or needs or marginal product or how hard he tires or the weighted sum of the foregoing and so on. "[21] Nozick claims that any patterned theory will always require the unjust use of force and coercion. Conclusion Rawls is not an egalitarian in the sense that he wants the available economic and social advantage distributed equally no matter what he is surely an egalitarian in his respect for the value and personal autonomy of each individual.[21] Rawls' egalitarianism is, however, based upon a kind of social contract theory rather than any evaluation of objective human needs. Rawls' is clearly a redistributionist in that he takes the proper function of Government to include not merely the maintenance of a social order but the achievement of distributive justice by planning the highest social value on the needs of the neediest. In insisting upon the foundation of the rights of individuals as against the means and orientation of the Utilitarians, Rawls supports the priority of individual rights and freedom. Hence, the first principle of justice i.e. "The Principle of Greatest Equal Liberty" gives priority to the notion of individual freedom. The uniqueness of Rawls' approach is that rather than making an appeal to reason he devises a decision making technique designed to provide a perspective from which a fair, unbiased and unanimous choice of principles can be made. In short, the real importance of Rawls' work may well lie in the stimulation it has provided critics to address the basic questions of social justice. REFERENCES [1] Bird, Otto A, The Idea of Justice, 1967, Frederick Publishers, USA, page 3. [2] Bentham, Jermy, The Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1948, Hafner Publishing Co, New York, page 1. [3] Mill, John Stuart, System of Logic, Vol: II, 6th ed., Longmans Green and Co., London, page 550. [4] Ibid. page 551. [5] Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice, 1971. Oxford University Press, London, page 7. [6] Ibid, page 11. [7] Ibid, page 17. [8] Pettit, Philip, Judging justice: An Introduction to Contemporary Political Philosophy, 1980, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, page 149. [9] Rawls, John, Op. Cit. page 137. [10] Ibid, page 256. [11] Ibid, page 60. [12] Ibid, page 60. [13] Buchanan, Allen E. Marx and Justice: The Radical Critique of Liberalism, 1982, Methuen and Co., London, page 107. [14] Jacobs, Lasley A. An Introduction to Modern Political Philosophy: The Democratic Vision of Politics, 1997, Prentice -- Hall, Inc, New Jersey, page 91. [15] Ibid, page 75. [16] De Marco, Joseph P. "Rawls and Marx" in John Rawls' Theory of Social Justice H.Gene Blocker & Elizabeth H.Smith, editors, Ohio University Press, Athens, page 400. [17] Wolf, Robert Paul, Understanding Rawls: A Reconstruction and Critique of A Theory of Justice, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1977, page 204. [18] Ibid, page 190. [19] Pettit, Philip Analytical Philosophy in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, Robert E. Goodin & Philip Pettit, editors, Blackwell, UK, 1995, page 16. [20] Nozick, Robert (1974) Anarchy, State and utopia, in John Arthur & William H. Shaw (eds) (1992) Social and Political Philosophy, Prentice Hall, USA, page 215. [21] Gorovitz, Samuel John Rawls; A Theory of Justice in Contemporary Political Philosophers, Anthony de Crespigny & Kenneth Minogue, editors, Methuen & Co., London, 1975 page 286.